University of Hawaii Community Colleges
Instructional Annual Report of Program Data (ARPD)

Select the desired review year, college, and program from the drop down menus. Once a program has been selected, the results will be displayed.

Review Year: College: Program:

College: Leeward Community College
Program: Remedial/Developmental Reading

Printer Friendly

PDF PDF

The last comprehensive review for this program was on 2011, and can be viewed at:
http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/cc/arpd/index.php

Program Description

All but one [ENG 102, College Level Reading] of the Reading Discipline’s courses are developmental in nature.  They are primarily designed to help students become more effective readers, but they also teach the tools and knowledge students need to be successful in college.  In these courses, students use the structure of nonfiction prose as a comprehension aid; greatly expand the number of words they recognize; find and use clues in the text to guess the probable meaning of an unfamiliar word; and practice reading and study strategies that increase concentration, understanding and remembering.  In addition, English 21 teaches reading-related skills that are needed in many 100-level courses.

Part I. Quantitative Indicators

Overall Program Health: Cautionary
Demand Indicators Program Year Demand Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
1 Enrolled in any Remedial/Developmental 785 787 488 Cautionary
2 Semester Hours Taught 138 141 87
3 * Student Semester Hours (SSH) Taught 2613 2541 1581
4 Full Time Students (Fall) Enrolled 338 337 197
5 Full Time Students (Spring) Enrolled 173 159 96
6 Number of Classes Taught 46 47 29
Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort
2009 2010 2011
7 Percent AtD Cohort with Placement 77% 82% 84%
8 AtD Cohort Placing Remdial/Developmental 34% 35% 36%
9 Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 426 411 419
9a Percent Cohort Enrolling Remedial/Developmental 73% 70% 71%
10 * Increase Percent Enrolling -4% -3% 1%

Efficiency Indicators Program Year Efficiency Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
11 Average Class Size 18.9 18.0 18.2 Healthy
12 * Fill Rate 94.6% 90.1% 90.8%
13 Number of Low-Enrolled (<10) Classes 1 2 2
14 * BOR Appointed Faculty (FTE) 4 3.9 2.5
15 Non-BOR Appointed Faculty Teaching Classes 2 4 2
16 Percentage Classes Taught by Regular Discipline Faculty 87% 83% 86%
17 Percentage Classes Taught by non Regular Discipline Faculty 13% 17% 14%
18 Program Budget Allocation $276,703 Not Reported Not Reported
18b Tution and Fees $0 Not Reported Not Reported
19 Cost per SSH $106 Not Reported Not Reported
*Data element used in health call calculation Last Updated: November 13, 2013

Effectiveness Indicators Program Year Effectiveness Health Call
10-11 11-12 12-13
Retention (Course Completion) Unhealthy
20 1 Level Below College Level 95% 96% 97%
21 2 Levels Below College Level 95% 95% 98%
22 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
Successful completion (Equivalent C or Higher)
23 1 Level Below College Level 65% 72% 70%
23a 1 Level Below College Level 471 513 333
24 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 33 26 16
25 2 Levels Below College Level 59% 53% 58%
25a 2 Levels Below College Level 86 70 30
26 Withdrawals (Grade = W) 8 6 1
27 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
27a 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
28 Withdrawals (Grade = W) N/A N/A N/A

Achieving the Dream AtD Fall Cohort  
2009 2010 2011
29 Cohort Enrolled in Remedial Developmental Course 426 411 419  
30 Cohort Successful Completion at Least One Remedial/Developmental Course within First Academic Year 288 298 312
31 Percent Cohort Successful Completion 68% 73% 74%
Remedial/Developmental Pipeline
32 AtD Cohort Size 1,727 1,678 1,627
33 Percent AtD Students Placing Into Remedial/ Developmental Level 34% 35% 36%
34 Percent AtD Cohort Enrolled in Remedial/ Developmental Course 25% 24% 26%
35 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing Any Remedial/ Developmental Course Within First Academic Year 49% 51% 53%
36 Percent AtD Cohort Successfully Completing College Level Course Within First Academic Year 7% 7% 5%

Successful Next Level Program Year  
10-11 11-12 12-13
Persistence (Fall to Spring)  
37 * Percent From 1 Level Below College Level, To College Level   0% 0%
37a From 1 Level Below College Level, To College level 3 0 0
38 Percent From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below   64% 61%
38a From 2 Levels Below College Level, To 1 Level Below 42 25 11
39 Percent From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below   N/A N/A
39a From 3 or More Levels Below College Level, To 2 Levels Below N/A N/A N/A
Success in Subsequent Level (Equivalent C or Higher)
40 College Level From 1 Level Below 2 0 0
40a * Percent College Level From 1 Level Below   N/A N/A
41 1 Level Below From 2 Levels Below College Level 32 20 8
42 2 Levels Below From 3 or More Levels Below College Level N/A N/A N/A
*Data element used in health call calculation Last Updated: November 13, 2013
Glossary | Health Call Scoring Rubric

Part II. Analysis of the Program

DEMAND INDICATORS

Enrollment, number of classes, and number of semester hours taught in AY 12-13 have gone down.  This could actually be a good thing for a developmental education program whose goal is to move students through successfully to college-level courses.  It could also show that students are not taking developmental courses even though they have been placed into them.  Current numbers show that we are moving in the right direction.

EFFICIENCY INDICATORS

The fill rate is still at 90.8 percent and class size is at 18.2 students.  Before Fall 2013, 20 students were the maximum allowed for these courses, but in Fall 2013, the cap was lifted to 25 students for each course.

In AY 12-13, the percentage of courses taught by regular discipline faculty increased by four percentage points, from 83% in AY 11-12 to 87%.  In general, a higher percentage of regular, full-time faculty tends to encourage curriculum development and pedagogical consistency, so we are moving in the right direction.

EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS

The indicators for AY 11-12 and 12-13 are as follows:

The success rate for ENG 21 was 70. For ENG 18 the success rate was 58%.

PERSISTENCE INDICATORS

Data was only available for persistence of students moving from ENG 18 to ENG 21 went from 64 percent to 61 percent between AY 11 - 12 and 12- 13.

There are ongoing initiatives to improve persistence and success for students:

1)  DevEd Steering Committee:  A core group of six Dev Ed instructors who proposed projects during AY 11-12 related to developmental education has been meeting approximately every two weeks to analyze and evaluate directions which the DevEd courses will be taking in AY 2013-2014.  A main consideration was the proposal and implementation for a new course, ENG 24, modeled on the Chabot College project of Professor Katie Hern, which incorporates reading, writing, and reasoning into one course.  This is a 6-credit course which combines both the intermediate (ENG 18,19) and developmental levels (ENG 21, 22) into one. The faculty meet bi-weekly and continue to develop curriculum and are working on assessment of the course during the pilot program period.

The course is currently in it's third semester of a two-year pilot program.

2)  Useful components of the Team Success initiative are still being used in DevEd classrooms:  a campus exploration project, expanded time management and study skills instruction, participation in Counseling’s Early Alert procedure, regular use of planners, and self-analysis re: motivation, attitude toward college, college success skills and strategies.

Part III. Action Plan

No content.

Part IV. Resource Implications

No content.